On Friday, July 31, a federal judge in Boston hit pause on the Trump administration's plan to strip legal status from about 1,100 Somali immigrants while a lawsuit against that plan goes forward.
On Saturday, Tennessee Congressman Andy Ogles announced he would try to remove her from the bench.
"On Monday I will file Articles of Impeachment against Judge Allison Burroughs for her unconstitutional act of Judicial Activism!!!"
That's the whole case, as Ogles posted it on X. A judge ruled against the administration, so she should be thrown off the federal bench.
The Supreme Court ruling he's citing says the opposite of what he says it says
Ogles's spokesman laid out the argument:
"SCOTUS made it very clear that lower courts cannot suspend TPS. Yet, an Obama appointed judge is defying the Court and the Constitution in an attempt to subvert the will of the President."
That's not what the Supreme Court said.
In June 2026, the Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Doe that the Temporary Protected Status statute stops federal courts from second-guessing the Department of Homeland Security's decisions about designating, extending, or ending TPS. It was a real win for the administration, and it cleared the way to end protections for Syrian and Haitian nationals.
But the ruling was about statutory claims — arguments that DHS broke the TPS law. It did not foreclose constitutional claims. As Fox News reported in its coverage of Burroughs's order, Mullin limited lower courts' power over TPS terminations based on non-constitutional claims, and left Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process arguments open.
And a constitutional claim is exactly what's in front of Judge Burroughs now.
African Communities Together and other plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to argue the administration violated the Fifth Amendment — that it decided to revoke Somalia's TPS before doing the legal review the law requires, and that it singled out Somali nationals because of their race and national origin. The complaint points to Donald Trump's own public descriptions of Somali immigrants as "criminals," "gang members," and "low IQ."
Burroughs issued an administrative stay so the court can look at that claim before roughly 1,100 people lose their status. That is a judge doing the job the Supreme Court left her.
Ogles is calling that an impeachable offense.
What "the will of the President" is supposed to mean
Read the spokesman's sentence again. The judge is "defying the Court and the Constitution in an attempt to subvert the will of the President."
Federal judges are not there to carry out the will of the president. That's the entire design. Article III gives judges lifetime tenure specifically so they can rule against the president without losing their jobs. A member of Congress treating "she ruled against Trump" as grounds for removal isn't describing judicial misconduct — he's describing the judiciary working.
The Constitution sets the bar for removing a federal judge at "high crimes and misdemeanors." Here's how that has actually worked in American history, according to the Federal Judicial Center: the House has impeached 15 federal judges. The Senate has convicted and removed 8.
The grounds were things like bribery, perjury, tax evasion, sexual assault, drunkenness on the bench, and refusing to hold court while waging war against the United States.
Not one was impeached over the substance of a ruling. Not one.
Who the 1,100 people are
It's worth remembering there are actual human beings on the other side of this filing.
When Burroughs first paused the termination back in March 13, 2026, she explained why. Reuters reported that she cited the "weighty" consequences of not acting: if Somalia's TPS designation lapsed, more than a thousand people would face "a myriad of grave risks" — detention and deportation, physical violence if sent back to Somalia, and being separated from their families.
These are people who have been living and working here legally. TPS exists precisely because Congress decided that sending people back into a war zone or a collapsed state is something the government should be able to hold off on. Somalia has been one of the world's most dangerous countries for decades.
Ogles is not arguing that those risks are overstated. He isn't arguing about Somalia at all. His argument is that a judge who paused to consider a discrimination claim should be removed from office.
This is a pattern, not a one-off
Ogles has done this before, and so have his colleagues.
In June 2026, after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship 5-4, Ogles said the Court had "betrayed America" and introduced a bill to override it — the same instinct, aimed at a different branch. He called American-born children "anchor babies" who "colonize our country."
His Florida colleague Greg Steube filed articles of impeachment against a federal judge over an immigration ruling and didn't notice the judge had already died.
The through-line is simple. When a court rules the administration's way, it's the rule of law. When a court rules against it, the judge is a criminal who should be removed. That's not a legal philosophy. It's a demand that one branch of government stop existing.
What this costs Tennessee's 5th District
Ogles represents a district that includes part of Nashville and the counties south of it. His constituents are dealing with grocery bills, insurance premiums, and hospitals under strain.
None of that is what he's spending this week on. He's spending it on articles of impeachment that will not pass the House, would not get 67 votes in the Senate if they did, and are aimed at a judge whose offense was reading a Supreme Court opinion more carefully than he did.
An impeachment filing over a ruling isn't oversight. It's a threat sent to every federal judge who might be asked to rule on this administration next: decide the wrong way and we'll come for your job. We deserve better.
Source
"Rep. Andy Ogles Moves to Impeach Obama-Appointed Judge Blocking TPS Terminations," Townhall, August 2, 2026, with additional reporting from Fox News and Legal Insurrection. Photo: AP (file).
